No. 18-7340
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review circuit-split consecutive-sentences criminal-law criminal-procedure-sentencing due-process federal-statute mandatory-minimum mandatory-minimums sentencing sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation united-states-v-battle
Latest Conference:
2019-02-15
Question Presented (from Petition)
SINCE 18 U.S.C. 924(j) Is A DISCRETE OFFENSE THAT DOES NOT CONTAIN A MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE OR REQUIRE A CONSECUTIVE S,DID THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT APPEALS COURT ERR WHEN IT SIDED WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT §924(j) REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 10-YEAR CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 924 (C)?
IN LIGHT OF THE TFNI}I CIRCUIT OVERRULING UNITED STATES V. BAITLE ,DOES THIS IMPLY THE CIRCUITS THAT FOLLOWED THE BATTLE REASONING SHOULD RECONSIDER THEIR POSITION,NCM THAT THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS ANNOUNCED IN MELGAR-CABRERAS THAT BATTLE WAS WRONGFULLY DECIDED?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) requires a minimum 10-year consecutive sentence
Docket Entries
2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-07-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 8, 2019)
Attorneys
Eric Dillon
Eric Dillon — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent